Do atheists / agnostics acknowledge sin?

[MagusYanam]

It has often been my experience that atheists or agnostics will claim that the concept of 'sin' is peculiar to the religious, or to Christians in particular, as for example Zzyzx posted in the 'is homosexuality worse than other sins?' thread:

Homosexuality is a “sin” only in the eyes of SOME Christians. No one is bound by anyone else’s interpretations of ancient religious tomes. A person who condemns the lifestyle of another is a BIGOT. Bigot is defined as: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”

Two-thirds of the world’s population is Non-Christian – four billion people who are NOT bound by Christian dogma. “Sin” in a Christian concept that applies to Christians. Others realize that there is no reason to accept the concept or the ranting that condemns what Christians decide their gods do or do not want.

I argue that this is not the case. I think of sin as a basic component of human nature, that leads us to be self-centred and short-sighted, and separated irreparably from our fellow human beings (and thus, if you will, from God). I have argued in this thread that homosexuality is not a 'sin', according to this definition, though that is not at issue here. I've seen atheists and agnostics on this site argue that there are evils like greed and bigotry and zealotry that could be classified under this definition as 'sin'.

So my question is, can atheists and agnostics acknowledge such a view of sin, that humans are separated irrevocably from each other thanks to our self-awareness that ultimately gives rise to self-centredness and short-sightedness?

[Scrotum]

"Sin" is a religious concept, Atheist are not religious, hence, do not acknowledge it.


Considering Christians say "killing" is a sin, but think "War" (which equals killing) is OK, as well as killing your own children is "good", and yet say "killing" is wrong, i get a bit confused.


And as suicide is a quick way to get to Heaven, yet, they say its "wrong" (a sin) im also confused on that point.


Anyway, "Atheists" accept what works in a Society, killings do not, it makes a society unstable and dangerous, look at Iraq or U.S, very dangerous countries where fear seem to rule. Whiles in European countries they live more safe, with less Crime and Violence then Both Iraq (Muslim) and U.S (Christian), I think "Atheist" thought is the good one.

Gosh, am i roght? Yes, end of story. Only ignorants go against it, and lets see, any Religious people here? (Religion = Ignorance, as we all know, the better educated, the less religious, look at Europe and Scandinavia for proof of point, and Iraq and U.S as opposite).

[MagusYanam]

"Sin" is a religious concept, Atheist are not religious, hence, do not acknowledge it.

Hm. So then, in your view, what is the cause of such evils as greed, bigotry, zealotry et cetera.

Personally, I don't think 'sin' needs to be a religious concept. It can be used in religious contexts - for example, 'sinning' against God - but I think that a lot of atheists still acknowledge that people can 'sin' against one another, even if they don't call it by such a name.

Considering Christians say "killing" is a sin, but think "War" (which equals killing) is OK, as well as killing your own children is "good", and yet say "killing" is wrong, i get a bit confused.

And no wonder, considering the generalisations you make. I am Christian, I think 'killing' is a sin, and I think 'war' is a greater social sin. As for killing children, how can that be justified at all, let alone considered 'good'?

Also, where is suicide considered a quick way to get to Heaven (aside from suicide cults, that is, and Christianity is certainly not that)?

Anyway, "Atheists" accept what works in a Society, killings do not, it makes a society unstable and dangerous

Interesting. So if society is stable and safe, the acts that create such an atmosphere can be considered good. Tell me, how would you characterise actions that create a stable and safe society? What's the underlying factor that causes societies to become safe and stable, in your opinion?

Whiles in European countries they live more safe, with less Crime and Violence then Both Iraq (Muslim) and U.S (Christian), I think "Atheist" thought is the good one.

Gosh, am i roght? Yes, end of story. Only ignorants go against it, and lets see, any Religious people here? (Religion = Ignorance, as we all know, the better educated, the less religious, look at Europe and Scandinavia for proof of point, and Iraq and U.S as opposite).

Might I note that you're writing this from a country which is about 90% Lutheran, bordering a country that is about 85% Lutheran, 8% Orthodox (Finland). I don't think that 'religion' in general or Christianity in particular are the end root causes of crime and violence. Certainly they are factors - but I think that fear and desperation are the main causes of crime and violence. Christianity seems to have a mixed track record with regard to addressing crime and violence, but I wouldn't write it off the books entirely.

Also, I've noticed that one of the main side effects of ignorance is indeed dogmatism (be it atheistic or Christian). I hope that I never in my life answer my own question 'am I right?' with a 'yes, end of story'. If it really were the end of the story, there would be no point in participating in forums such as this.

[agnosis]

I think its pretty telling that there is no concept of sin in most Eastern religions. It is principally a construct of the Abrahamic religions.

Sin has religious connotations and is broadly understood as applying to moral offences. Although the dictionary definition of the word implies that it does not have to be an exclusively religious term, I think most people automatically associate the word with religious wrongs, and the fact that there is a distinction between the words "crime " and "sin" pretty much says it all. We don't think of the two as being the same - you can have a sin that isn't a crime, and vice versa.

In the light of this, I think it becomes very difficult for anyone to claim that sin is a universally applicable term.

[Goat]

It has often been my experience that atheists or agnostics will claim that the concept of 'sin' is peculiar to the religious, or to Christians in particular, as for example Zzyzx posted in the 'is homosexuality worse than other sins?' thread:

Homosexuality is a “sin” only in the eyes of SOME Christians. No one is bound by anyone else’s interpretations of ancient religious tomes. A person who condemns the lifestyle of another is a BIGOT. Bigot is defined as: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”

Two-thirds of the world’s population is Non-Christian – four billion people who are NOT bound by Christian dogma. “Sin” in a Christian concept that applies to Christians. Others realize that there is no reason to accept the concept or the ranting that condemns what Christians decide their gods do or do not want.

I argue that this is not the case. I think of sin as a basic component of human nature, that leads us to be self-centred and short-sighted, and separated irreparably from our fellow human beings (and thus, if you will, from God). I have argued in this thread that homosexuality is not a 'sin', according to this definition, though that is not at issue here. I've seen atheists and agnostics on this site argue that there are evils like greed and bigotry and zealotry that could be classified under this definition as 'sin'.

So my question is, can atheists and agnostics acknowledge such a view of sin, that humans are separated irrevocably from each other thanks to our self-awareness that ultimately gives rise to self-centredness and short-sightedness?

I will argue that there is a difference between 'sin' as a christian concept and sin in
judaism at least.

In Christianity, SIN is going against "God's Law". It is not quite the case in Judaism. SIN, in hebrew, litterally means 'Missing the mark'. It means not doing as well as you could. If you made an error that hurts someone else, even though it isn't 'breaking god's law", it is a sin.

So, it all depends on if the sin is a 'christian' sin, or a different concept.

[ST88]

I think of sin as a basic component of human nature, that leads us to be self-centred and short-sighted, and separated irreparably from our fellow human beings (and thus, if you will, from God)...
So my question is, can atheists and agnostics acknowledge such a view of sin, that humans are separated irrevocably from each other thanks to our self-awareness that ultimately gives rise to self-centredness and short-sightedness?

"Sin" as most people understand it is exclusively a religious concept because it is understood -- in my experience -- as actions which tend to separate man from God. That is, sin only operates on a spiritual level. I don't have any support for this, it's just an impression.

The religious form of sin does have a secular analogue, but there aren't any inscriptions on stone tablets that define what it is. "Secular sins", if you like, are those actions which cause us to hate ourselves in the morning. Both concepts have the idea that we can't really help ourselves at the time, and that we come to regret it later. A secular view may also contain the idea that each regrettable action has an overall negative effect on us, however this is not required and really depends on how much the individual can get over it [secular contrition, forgiveness of oneself, repression, etc.]. Often, this is due to selfish desires that cause us to be short-sighted, but this is not a requirement either. There are many reasons to hate ourselves in the morning. Sometimes even for doing the "right thing" . Some people feel bad about way too much, and some way too little.

The secular sin, then, isn't so for everyone at every time. Some may regret an adulterous act, for example, and others may not, for various reasons. Some may regret coveting their neighbor's oxen, and others may not. Human psychology is so varied that responses will be different even among those who see their actions in roughly the same light.

[Zzyzx]

Non-Christians have no need for the concept of “sin” (which is a religious invention).

Instead, Non-Christians can utilize the concept of ethics to guide behavior. Right or wrong are determined by reason and logic rather than by self-serving religious dogma.

The bible cannot, based in reason, be defended as an ethical guide. Its emphasis on anger, hatred, killing, warfare, punishment precludes any claim of ethical guidance.

Christian “sins” include many actions (or thoughts) that relate to worshiping of gods. Obviously such “sins” apply only to “believers”. Dogma also declares as “sinful” conditions or decisions that cannot be shown to be ethically “wrong”.

Most destructive of the Christian concept of “sin” is its followers’ failure to “walk the talk”. Believing themselves “forgiven” for their “sins” they demonstrate willingness or eagerness to condemn the “sins” of others, including those who reject religion and are not bound by its beliefs.

[Easyrider]

Bigot is defined as: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”

Obviously this also fits the description of numerous non-believers who are "intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Non-Christians have no need for the concept of “sin” (which is a religious invention).

Disagree. Whether they believe in sin or not they'll ultimately be judged on them.

Right or wrong are determined by reason and logic rather than by self-serving religious dogma.

Yeah, the Dred Scott case is a fine example of that.

The bible cannot, based in reason, be defended as an ethical guide.

Sure it can.

Its emphasis on anger, hatred, killing, warfare, punishment precludes any claim of ethical guidance.

The Biblical emphasis is on loving God and one's neighbor. As for punishment being unethical, we'd better go ahead and start dismantling the world's judicial systems then. Then open the prisons and see how the humanistic idea of Utopia looks with tens of millions of felons, murderers, etc. running loose.

Most destructive of the Christian concept of “sin” is its followers’ failure to “walk the talk”.

Some do and some don't.

1 John 1:8 - "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives."

Of course many humanists have a pretty pathetic "walk" too. But theirs is often a reduced standard, so that makes their endeavors especially wimpy to watch.

Believing themselves “forgiven” for their “sins” they demonstrate willingness or eagerness to condemn the “sins” of others, including those who reject religion and are not bound by its beliefs.

You wouldn't be subtly condemning other people's sins or attitudes here, would you? After all, you have no objective basis for your "ethical standards." It's all subjective, and changes like one changes his shorts, depending on the time, the culture, and the current whims of man. What's "in" today may well be gone tomorrow. Doesn't seem like there's any real anchor to man's moral stability in all that!

[bernee51]

So my question is, can atheists and agnostics acknowledge such a view of sin, that humans are separated irrevocably from each other thanks to our self-awareness that ultimately gives rise to self-centredness and short-sightedness?

To me as an atheist the very concept of sin is moot. Sin is an act against god, god does not exist, therefore sin does not exist.

The sense of an individual self is what brings about the idea that we are somehow separated irrevocably from each other. The realisation that this is an illusion brought about by ignorance moves to counter self-centredness.

[Confused]

It has often been my experience that atheists or agnostics will claim that the concept of 'sin' is peculiar to the religious, or to Christians in particular, as for example Zzyzx posted in the 'is homosexuality worse than other sins?' thread:

Homosexuality is a “sin” only in the eyes of SOME Christians. No one is bound by anyone else’s interpretations of ancient religious tomes. A person who condemns the lifestyle of another is a BIGOT. Bigot is defined as: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”

Two-thirds of the world’s population is Non-Christian – four billion people who are NOT bound by Christian dogma. “Sin” in a Christian concept that applies to Christians. Others realize that there is no reason to accept the concept or the ranting that condemns what Christians decide their gods do or do not want.

I argue that this is not the case. I think of sin as a basic component of human nature, that leads us to be self-centred and short-sighted, and separated irreparably from our fellow human beings (and thus, if you will, from God). I have argued in this thread that homosexuality is not a 'sin', according to this definition, though that is not at issue here. I've seen atheists and agnostics on this site argue that there are evils like greed and bigotry and zealotry that could be classified under this definition as 'sin'.

So my question is, can atheists and agnostics acknowledge such a view of sin, that humans are separated irrevocably from each other thanks to our self-awareness that ultimately gives rise to self-centredness and short-sightedness?

I think that despite what word you use, the concept is the same but need not be religious. The word sin is associated with religion. But wrong isn't. Is it a sin to be a bigot or is it wrong. Different sides of the same coin. It is merely terminology in my view. But I don't ascribe the term sin to mean humans are separated irrevocably form each other thanks to our self awareness etc.... That may be a result of the action of doing wrong, or sin if you will. But it doesn't reflect the meaning of the words wrong actions, or sin if you will.